>> "I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."
>>
>I'm happy with that. I'm not a terrorist so have nothing to fear from that.
Well I'm b***** not.
Insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, but enough to *know* they present a threat? That's called suspicion. Strong suspicion perhaps, but nonetheless suspicion.
What the hell happened to innocent until *proven* guilty???
God forbid they ever suspect you of something? Because under that regime being innocent would not be sufficient protection. Even if you could prove you were innocent, they could still suspect you.
We tried "sus law" once before. As I recall it didn't go well.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 14:48
|